Four production operations to be licensed and taxed.

Oakland has moved closer to becoming the first city in the United States to authorize wholesale pot cultivation.

A computer image of a marijuana growing operation envisioned by Gropech, one of the companies interested in running a city-licensed marijuana plantation in Oakland, Calif. (Gropech/Associated Press)The California city's council voted 5-2 with one abstention late Tuesday to license four operations where marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed.

The vote came after more than two hours of public comment, with speakers divided between those who opposed the measure —largely on the grounds that it could put small medical marijuana growers out of business — and those who said it would generate millions of dollars in taxes and sales, and would create hundreds of jobs.

The plantations would not be limited in size — one potential applicant for a licence intends to produce over 9,525 kilograms of pot a year — but they would be heavily taxed and regulated.

Those vying for one of the four licences would have to pay $211,000 US in annual permit fees, carry $2 million worth of liability insurance and be prepared to devote up to eight per cent of gross sales to city taxes.

Proponents of the measure touted the possibility of Oakland becoming the U.S. cannabis capital, especially if California voters approve the legalization of recreational marijuana in November.

"Do you want to be the Silicon Valley of cannabis?" said Jeff Wilcox, a local businessman who proposes to build AgraMed, a three-hectare plant with a bakery, a lab and 9,300 square metres of cultivation space.

But Stephen DeAngelo, executive director of Harborside Health Center, the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world, said small growers were terrified that the ordinance would mean the end of their livelihoods.

One of the co-sponsors of the council initiative, Rebecca Kaplan, said it would not take effect until January, allowing time to come up with a plan for medium-sized growers.

Councilwoman Nancy Nadel said she worried about the quality of the product, wanted environmental protections and questioned why council was voting on the measure now if it wasn't going to take effect until January.

The measure will go before council members one more time for a final vote, but the outcome isn't expected to change.

To the editor:

Kelowna RCMP Supt. Bill McKinnon recently held a press conference in which he expressed frustration with the sentencing of people involved in marijuana production operations (Kelowna Captial News, June 8).

The timing of this media briefing was interesting; legislation regarding mandatory minimum sentences for grow-ops is currently before Parliament.

Like Supt. McKinnon, I am a police officer in British Columbia. I express my views on drug policy while off-duty and out of uniform by volunteering with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

LEAP is a group of current and former criminal justice professionals who understand that drug prohibition is a public policy failure.

We don’t support or encourage drug abuse, nor breaking the law. We simply believe that regulating and controlling drugs would be more ethical and less harmful than prohibition.

While it is easy to criticize the judiciary—judges are professionally bound to ignore such comments—it would be more difficult for a senior police executive to explain the benefits of prohibition.

What is so wonderful about this policy that justifies the black market violence and the criminalization of millions of Canadians?

David Bratzer,
Victoria

A couple of absentee homeowners risk losing their houses in West Kelowna if they don’t deal with claims that their properties were once used as marijuana grow operations.

Coun. Gord Milsom said that by placing notices on title this week at 1605 McNaughton Rd. and 2470 Boucherie Rd., council has sent a strong message that grow ops are not acceptable in West Kelowna.

“They’ll be found and they will be shut down,” Milsom stated.

The RCMP said officers raided 1605 McNaughton Road on March 7 and 2470 Boucherie Road on March 16, uncovering substantial grow operations.

Regulatory services director Dave Slobodan said that once police snapped photos of the set ups and removed plants and growing equipment, his building inspectors went in and shut down the houses.

Do not occupy signs will remain on both properties, warning of health and safety hazards, until the houses are cleaned up, he explained.

Slobodan said the registered homeowner at 1605 McNaughton was reached once and staff advised Jessica Trautman that remedial work would need to be done on her home.

However, Trautman told staff she would rather demolish the dwelling than carry out the works required for re-occupancy, Slobodan said in his report to council.

Since then the municipality has been unable to reach Trautman again.

The notice that council has placed on the home’s title warns any future buyer of all the work must be done to make the house safe again prior to occupancy, Slobodan said.

Meanwhile, Slobodan mentioned the municipality has also been unable to reach Alfons Schoenherr, the registered owner of 2470 Boucherie Rd.

Letters went out on March 17, April 13, April 28 and May 18 advising him the house had been used for a grow operation, that an inspection had been done, clean up was required and that fees were owing for the inspection.

Slobodan said the municipality must learn to keep patient in these situations because the homeowners almost always come forward, eventually.

“In my years of experience I haven’t experienced a property owner that has not come and rectified their issues,” said Slobodan. “They procrastinate for a period of time and then it comes time to sell the house because they can’t fix it themselves or they don’t have the money to fix it.”

Slobodan explained the homeowners would eventually grasp the concept that they could lose their homes if they don’t come forward.

“It is a large investment for them. A lot of these houses are very expensive.”

Slobodan said if and when either homeowner comes forward, he would come back to council with an update.

At this point, both homeowners owe $2,500 each for the initial site inspection on their properties, plus $250 each for the registration of the notices on title.

For now, the bill will be added to the homeowner’s property taxes.

If taxes go unpaid for three years, the municipality will sell the houses to get what it’s owed.

jluciw "at" kelownacapnews.com

Kelowna’s top cop is expressing frustration over what he perceives as short sentences handed down to local pot growers.

Supt. Bill McKinnon ordered a review of court dispositions in 2008 and 2009 for people charged with production of a controlled substance and found that of the 111 people in 81 grow operations whose court case has finished, 44 were found guilty. Ten of those 44 people were sentenced to jail time.

“From a police perspective, I don’t think that’s enough,” McKinnon said Monday. “There has to be a bigger consequence.”

According to the research, the longest sentence was 15 months in jail—for a person who was sentenced to nine months in jail earlier in the time period.

Three of the 10 people had no previous convictions, and two were given jail sentences of 90 days while the other was sentenced to 12 months.

Twenty nine people were handed conditional sentences, meaning they could be served at home. (They would serve the remainder of their sentence in jail if they breached the conditions they were to follow). Six were handed probation.

Forfeitures were ordered for 38 of the 44 people—primarily caretakers of grow operations—that have been found guilty and sentenced, with one case resulting in a home being seized. “I’d like to see more homes seized,” said McKinnon. “You have to hit them in the pocketbook.”

The court records also show that a total of 48 cases were stayed, 12 people were acquitted and charges were dismissed against six people. McKinnon said he is trying to provide the community with the facts in presenting the information, and was not using the press conference to lobby for change, although he feels more lengthy periods of incarceration are needed to deter pot growers. He also acknowledges local judges have a difficult job, noting they are held to account for the sentences they hand out by the appeal court.

Still, McKinnon feels it is worth going after grow operations, “when you (consider) all the other dangers to the public, I really believe it is.”

He cites poisonous fumes, fires, electrocution, violence, increased crime, booby traps, higher utility costs, environmental damage and hazards to children as some dangers of grow operations.

Fed heads will have to find somewhere else to get their nosh for a while, as the popular eatery, the Grateful Fed, has fallen victim of the law.

It appears a little weed, among a few other things, has led to Bernard Avenue restaurant being forced to close temporarily.

“Thanks to the Liquor control Board, the Grateful Fed will be closed for two weeks starting May 28—16 employees out of work, grand re-opening, June 11,” reads a sign outside the door.

According to a representative from the Liquor Control Board, the pub is currently serving a 14-day licence suspension and $2,000 penalty for permitting an intoxicated person to remain, permitting patrons to smoke pot on the pub patio and carry liquor across an unlicensed sidewalk.

The infractions occurred Oct 23, 2009 and the matter went to an enforcement hearing where the restaurant owner Karmel Abougoush licensee agreed that the contraventions occurred.

While Abougoush was unavailable for comment, the closure is just one of a series that have occurred as of late, sparking lively debate on a local web forum about an overzealous enforcement officer.

Among those that have faced suspensions from the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch are the O.K. Corral Liquor Store for selling liquor to a minor. The Packing House Pub also got a suspension for selling liquor to a minor, as did East Side Mario’s for permitting an intoxicated person to remain. Rose’s Waterfront Pub was temporarily closed because of an employee consuming liquor and permitting an intoxicated person to remain.

While some have sour grapes, the general manager of Rose’s said he has a good working relationship with the officer and the officer is only doing his job.

“What’s happened in the past is that there hasn’t been much enforcement, and there’s been quite a bit going down in town — it’s all just new,” said Andrew Neville.

The liquor board is on the same page, noting that their Kelowna enforcement officer is often acting on tips from other agencies.

“Liquor inspectors work closely with police. Some of the recent enforcement action is the result of contraventions originally identified by the RCMP, who have provided that information to the liquor inspector,” said a representative.

Typically the branch will review this information and may recommend enforcement action. If it does, the licensee can request a hearing and the branch must present evidence that proves, on a balance of probabilities, a contravention occurred.

A Vernon campaign to update B.C.’s liquor laws now has provincewide support.

A Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce policy that supports distilleries was passed successfully at the 58th annual general meeting of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

“We are pleased this resolution has been passed with the full support of the delegates attending the B.C. chamber conference,” said Jonathan Jones, Greater Vernon chamber president.

The policy resolution entitled, Liquor Distribution Branch Changes to Support Industry Choice For B.C., speaks to the need for the provincial government to review the legislative and regulatory structure with respect to alcoholic beverage manufacture, distribution and sale in B.C. to ensure fairness and balance in the industry, including artisan distillers.

Currently, distillers cannot sell their product directly to liquor stores.

“This is a practical policy that directly impacts a member business in our community and we are delighted that our chamber has been able to impact the potential growth and development of artisan distilleries across B.C., but more importantly in our community,” said Jones.

The development of this policy was a partnership between Okanagan Spirits, the City of Vernon, economic development and the Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce.

“This is fantastic news. For the first time in our six-year history we feel that we have an opportunity to bring additional focus and outside attention to the current regulatory distribution system,” said Rodney Goodchild, sales and marketing manager of Vernon-based Okanagan Spirits.

“A change in the distribution policy would give our distillery and others of similar size a real chance to develop and grow in Vernon and throughout the province.”

The adoption of this policy now directs the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to address this issue with the provincial government.

There is a huge dragon in our living rooms that is named the war on drugs. Our elected leaders are reluctant to talk about it, and it is not a popular topic in daily conversations either.

The war eats up our resources, robs our society of scarce finances, and is an agent of social harm. The dragon's fire is prohibition, and collateral damage from that is huge. Prohibition's aim is to produce a drug-free society, and we will never totally achieve that. It's far better to manage drug use in intelligent ways.

The evidence of prohibition's failure is all around us. Daily we hear news, local and international, of never ending drug busts and violence as gangs shoot it out over turf. This is a global issue and in general, poor countries supply and wealthy ones buy. B.C. Bud is our biggest export commodity.

The associated issues of petty crime, break and enters, gun smuggling, prostitution, corruption of police and politicians, gambling associated money laundering, the spread of HIV/AIDS, incarceration, family disruption, and growing cynicism amongst our youth who see the hypocrisies, are a huge cost. Local RCMP will tell you that 80 per cent of local crime is drug-related. The U.S. spends $44 billion, and worldwide costs are more than 300 billion a year. Prohibition gives over control, including pricing, profits and purity, to organized crime.

Marijuana is widely used, and many people lead a secret, hypocritical life about it. According to the 2008 Drug Use Survey (Health Canada), 14.6 per cent of youth and 11.6 per cent of the general population use cannabis. The Canadian Senate Report (Special Committee on Illegal Drugs 2002), proposes a criminal exemption policy with careful regulation and licensing along the lines of how we control tobacco and alcohol. It also proposes a monitoring agency, and ongoing research after implementation. Let us not forget that alcohol abuse and tobacco use are still major societal problems. However we the public are in control. The profits return to us as taxes, and we respect the adult right to choose.

In 50 years of social persuasion, regulation, treatment programs and court battles with tobacco producers, we have made major progress in reducing morbidity from these two legal substances.

It can be done.

Change is beginning to happen. The Obama administration is no longer spraying coca crops in Colombia. Mexico has moved independently of the U.S. to decriminalize the personal use of cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and metamphetamine. Portugal has nine years experience with the decriminalization of personal use. Stats there show a decrease in use while use in European Union countries still in criminal mode show no change.

It is important to realize that there are no "good" solutions here, only "least worst" ones, and prohibition is the worst one. Those who are studying what needs to happen if we abandon prohibition say we will need to give full weight to a four pillars approach emphasizing prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. Specific drug by drug regulatory scenarios would be proposed.

What can you do? Talk about it, educate yourself, (www.Leap.cc and www.drugpolicy.org), educate your MP and support one who is brave enough to come out on the subject. Demand change at election time.

David Kennedy, MD (retired)

VANCOUVER -- Most Canadians believe they should be free to toke with impunity -- but their tolerance for marijuana use doesn’t extend to other, harder drugs, according to a new national poll.

The Angus Reid poll, released Thursday, also shows many Canadians (42%) believe Canada has a serious nationwide drug abuse problem and 70% want mandatory minimum prison sentences and fines for drug dealers and marijuana grow operators.

The poll supports the findings of past Angus Reid polls that showed most Canadians believe decriminalization of marijuana possession is appropriate, but that other illegal drugs should remain illegal.

“As was the case two years ago, a majority of Canadians (53%) support the legalization of marijuana,” said an Angus Reid media release.

Three provinces saw the highest levels of support for legalization: British Columbia (61%), Alberta (59%) and Ontario (57%).

The online survey of 1,010 Canadians between April 8-9 showed that support for legalization of hard drugs “is negligible” -- less than one in 10 voiced support for legalizing hard drugs, a figure that had actually dropped since the polling company’s survey in 2008. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3.1%.

The poll shows 83% of Canadians support the federal government’s National Anti-Drug Strategy awareness campaign to discourage young Canadians from using drugs. Seven in 10 people also support the Harper government’s call for mandatory prison sentences and large fines for grow operators and dealers.

Conversely, slightly more than a third of Canadians support the idea of eliminating harm-reduction programs such as supervised injection sites and needle-exchange programs. In B.C., where the federal government waged a fight to close Vancouver’s Insite supervised injection site, 64% of respondents said such programs should continue.

Canadians also appear to be more convinced than two years ago that Canada now has a serious drug problem and that the problems are confined to specific areas and people.

In May 2008, 15% said they believed Canada does not have a serious drug abuse problem, compared to 11% now. Forty per cent of respondents now believe the problem is confined to specific areas and people. In 2008, the figure was 35%.

Overall, the survey shows that 42% of Canadians believe Canada has a serious drug abuse problem that affects the whole country. In B.C. and Alberta the rate is 48%. Less than four in 10 people in Ontario and Quebec believe it’s a serious problem. But in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba/Saskatchewan, the rate is 55 and 56% respectively.

Vancouver Sun

A man seen crawling in the window of a house was not arrested for breaking and entering, but instead for the grow operation police discovered inside.

RCMP Const. Steve Holmes said police received a call at 6 p.m. on Nov. 27 of a person breaking into a residence in the 800-block of Fife Road. He said officers attended and arrested the man inside the home.

Holmes said the man explained he was the owner of the home and had forgotten his keys inside after locking the door. While the officers were inside the home, they discovered an active marijuana grow operation.

“It was pretty obvious when they went into the residence.”

Holmes said the officers returned with a search warrant, seizing 160 marijuana plants, several pounds of dried marijuana and associated grow equipment.

He noted the 44-year-old Kelowna man is now facing charges of marijuana cultivation and possession, and has no previous criminal record.

msimmons
"at" kelownacapnews.com

By a vote of 49-44, the Liberal-dominated upper chamber agreed to amend Bill C-15 to give judges greater discretion in sentencing convictions for growing between five and 200 plants.

The amendments also provide aboriginal convicts with an exemption from the minimum sentences, require judges to explain why they are not imposing the suggested minimums, and add in a cost-benefit review of how the legislation is working after five years.

However, mandatory minimum sentences of nine months still remain in place if there are aggravating factors to the marijuana grow-op, such as endangering the health of a child or creating a public safety hazard.

The Conservative government has sharply criticized the Senate for tinkering with legislation that has already been passed by the elected House of Commons.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson called the changes "an early Christmas present from the Liberals to the people in the grow-op business - it sends out the complete wrong message in my opinion."

However Nicholson did not rule out accepting the Senate amendments.

He would only say that the changes mean the legislative debate will drag into the new year before the bill eventually gets passed into law.

[40] Forfeiture is not a new concept in Canadian criminal law. Forms of it have been found over the years in statutes related to customs and excise, as well as those related to the control of drugs and narcotics. The CDSA, which replaced the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1 in 1997, is among the more recent manifestations of forfeiture in Canadian law.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/07/02/2007bcca0234.htm

[7] Noting that expert evidence indicated that the need for general deterrence had increased, the judge concluded that forfeiture of the property in this case was necessary to provide an adequate level of deterrence if a conditional sentence were to be imposed.

[8] The appellant contends that the judge erred in failing to address whether the impact of forfeiture of the property would be disproportionate and instead focussed on whether forfeiture was necessary to provide an adequate level of deterrence. The appellants further contend that the judge failed to consider a partial forfeiture order, although they did not seek such an order in the Supreme Court.

[9] I am not persuaded that the judge erred as the appellants allege. The judge properly considered all of the statutory criteria in the context of the sentence as a whole. As this court stated recently in R. v. Craig, 2007 BCCA 234 at para. 66-67:

[66] With respect to the order of forfeiture, the answer to these questions is a function of the wording of the CDSA. Unlike forfeiture of personal property, real property is subject to ss. 19.1(3) and (4), which require the court to consider the "impact of forfeiture" in deciding whether it would be disproportionate. As I read these sections, their words do not require the court to consider whether forfeiture, as an objective concept, would be disproportionate given the nature and gravity of the offence. If they did, s. 19.1(3) might read: "if a court is satisfied that an order of forfeiture would be disproportionate …" Instead, what is says is, "if a court is satisfied that the impact of an order of forfeiture would be disproportionate…"

[67] Parliament's choice of the word "impact" brings a subjective element into the analysis. As I read it, s. 19.1(3) requires the court to ask what effect forfeiture will have on the offender and whether its impact would be disproportionate to the nature, gravity and circumstances surrounding the offence. The term 'impact', in my view, is broad enough to include consideration of a primary sentence. Indeed, a sentencing judge could not adequately assess the impact of forfeiture of real property or a dwelling-house without knowing the personal circumstances of the offender, which include the primary sentence that has been or will be imposed on that offender.

[10] It is clear that the judge in the instant case was careful to craft a sentence in which he considered deterrence to be a key objective. It cannot be ignored that the appellants in this case purchased the property with the evident intention to use it to produce marihuana at a time when the appellants lived in rental accommodation elsewhere.

The appeal is dismissed

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/07/04/2007bcca0474.htm forfeited

This is only a snippet of this court case, she appealed and got her house back after if was forfeited

--------------------------------------

[5] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the Crown’s appeal with respect to the order of forfeiture, set aside the decision of the sentencing judge, and order the North Vancouver home be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada to be disposed of in accordance with s. 16 of the CDSA. I would, however, dismiss the Crown’s appeal against the conditional sentence of imprisonment, and I would allow Ms. Craig’s appeal to the extent of setting aside the fine of $100,000.

Conclusion

[131] For the reasons I have given, I would allow the Crown appeal with respect to the order of forfeiture, set aside the decision of the sentencing judge, and order the Alder Street home to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada to be disposed of in accordance with s. 16 of the CDSA.

[132] In light of this forfeiture order, I would dismiss the Crown appeal against the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

[133] I would allow Ms. Craig’s appeal to the extent that the $100,000 fine and the victim surcharge are set aside.

[134] Finally, I would dismiss the other grounds with respect to the applicable process for forfeiture under ss. 16(1) and 19.1 of the CDSA.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/07/02/2007bcca0234.htm

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/09/04/2009BCCA0402.htm

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release 2009PSSG0039-000689

November 27, 2009
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

NUISANCE DRUG HOUSE SEIZED

VANCOUVER - The province’s innovative civil forfeiture act has been used to restore peace and safety to a Vancouver neighbourhood by seizing a known drug, weapons and prostitution den while associated criminal charges are dealt with in court, Solicitor General Kash Heed and Vancouver Police Department chief Jim Chu said today.

“Police were called to this house more than 500 times and residents in the area felt fearful and harassed – their safety jeopardized by illegal activities at the property,” said Heed. “Through civil forfeiture, we can take action in these kinds of situations to restore order to the community without having to wait for the outcome of a criminal proceeding.”

“The Province's civil forfeiture laws have enabled us to partner with government and deal with problems that compromised the safety and security of the neighbourhood,” said Chu. “It is a proactive way to make sure that criminals lose and the neighbourhood wins.”

Last April, VPD referred the file to the Civil Forfeiture Office. In May, the director initiated a civil forfeiture action in BC Supreme Court claiming that the property had been operated and possessed as an instrument of unlawful activity. This included being used for the sale of controlled substances contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and as a common bawdy house, contrary to the Criminal Code. The director claimed forfeiture of the property in accordance with the Civil Forfeiture Act.

On Nov. 24, 2009 the director secured forfeiture of the property. It will now be sold for an as yet undetermined price, with proceeds of the sale being paid to the Province’s civil forfeiture special account. The house is the 25th property forfeited to date.

In the three years since B.C. the Civil Forfeiture Act was passed, $7.5 million in illicit assets – including vehicles, cash and real estate – have been forfeited to the Province. Under the act, proceeds will go into a special account that is used to support the program and grants to victims and community crime prevention efforts. Most recently, $40,000 in civil forfeiture funds were provided to the Vancouver Police Department’s ConAir program.

Contact:

Media Relations
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
250 356-6961

For more information on government services or to subscribe to the Province’s news feeds using RSS, visit the Province’s website at www.gov.bc.ca.

Drug Policy Coordinator Presents Report

The Central Okanagan Drug Policy Coordinator has presented a report card on the Four Pillars Approach to Problematic Substance Use.

Christene Walsh told the Regional Hospital District Board that over the past two years many improvements have been made in the area of community support and reaction to substance abuse. She says there has been greater cooperation and coordination between public and non-profit agencies that deal with clients suffering addictions. As well, she says effective prevention, treatment and harm reduction activities are addressing drug-related health issues.

While she provides a ‘B’ grade overall, Walsh says the community is more engaged and willing to seek positive solutions in those areas that require more attention such as improving service and treatment capacity.

There’s one area of B.C. business investment that’s seen a boom in rural areas. Unfortunately, it’s organized crime.

You may have heard the saga of Likely, a tiny community east of Williams Lake. Last fall RCMP confirmed results of a two-year investigation that found eight properties with buildings fitted for large-scale marijuana growing.

At least one of those has been seized under civil forfeiture legislation, a powerful new tool in targeting proceeds of crime.

Nine Lower Mainland residents, all with Asian names, were charged.

Are there more Likelys out there?

No doubt the gangs learned about the hazards of creating a cluster in one place.

Just before New Year’s Day, police used snowmobiles to raid a property near Clearwater, north of Kamloops.

They described it as a machine shed with industrial-style wiring that appeared to have been built for a grow-op.

Further north, Houston RCMP resorted to using their holding cells to store masses of seized hydroponic equipment.

That’s according to deputy RCMP commissioner Gary Bass, who spoke to a conference on the hazards of grow-ops in Surrey last May.

The problem goes beyond marijuana, a relatively benign drug.

Bass noted that the popularity of “B.C. bud” has led to many new players in the cocaine trade. Even small local groups tend to have ties to bikers in southern B.C. who have developed lucrative bud-for-blow arrangements reaching down to South America.

And when bullets fly in B.C. communities, there are generally hard drugs, often cocaine, involved.

Surrey Fire Chief Len Garis spearheaded a new approach that targets safety hazards of bad wiring and high electricity consumption. In 2006 the B.C. government passed legislation allowing municipalities to obtain hydro records showing high-consumption properties, then inspect those properties.

Piloted in Surrey and Abbotsford, the approach has since been adopted in Coquitlam, Langley Township, Mission, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Richmond, Surrey and Vancouver.

Recent hydro records show a 20 per cent drop in high-consumption properties around the Lower Mainland.

Now Garis fears the problem has simply been displaced to more remote sites.

Gangs adapt quickly, buying power instead of stealing it, or going off the grid with generators in remote places.

Small towns have few police resources, and can’t afford electrical inspection teams on their own.

Garis points to a recent survey of hydroponic equipment stores that found more than 80 in all regions of B.C., compared to 13 in Alberta and nine in Washington state.

Police, firefighters and business groups supported a resolution at a recent municipal convention, calling on the B.C. government to require an electrical permit for buyers of high-powered lights and hydroponic gear. So far the government is non-committal.

I asked Solicitor General John van Dongen why.

He said his priority lately has been finding ways to regulate another illicit trade, metal theft.

(A court decision two years ago said municipalities can’t require pawn shops or scrap dealers to record sellers’ identities.)

He’s also concerned about restricting legitimate hydroponic farming.

“I’m going to take a bit more time to look at the hydroponic issue,” he said.

Garis says other provinces are acting. In 2006 Manitoba agreed to pay for electrical inspections, instead of leaving it to communities that can’t afford it, as B.C. is doing.

“We’re a world crime superpower predicated on marijuana,” a frustrated Garis told me.

“Eighty per cent of what we’re growing here is being distributed corporately to other provinces, the United States and elsewhere.

“We’ve made a booming business out of it because we’re resting on our laurels, saying, oh, we don’t want to regulate, and yet this thing just spirals out of control. It’s ridiculous.”

Prohibition doesn’t work

Before you start e-mailing me about the ultimate futility of prohibiting marijuana, let me say I agree.

Former prime minister Paul Martin’s government came close to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot, which could have begun to replace violent gangs with small-scale, benign growers.

Needless to say, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives aren’t keen.

They prefer mandatory minimum sentences for offenders, which sounds great until you look at the state of our court and prison system.

If we could somehow solve drug gang violence, our courts would soon be quiet. Last week an Abbotsford man was sentenced to 12 years for attempted murder. He shot another man four times over a $140 drug debt.

Ethnic gang realities

Before you start e-mailing me about the reference to “Asian names,” here’s how the RCMP broke down gang activity as of 2005.

They identified 108 groups, one quarter motorcycle gangs, nine per cent Asian triad-related (focused on heroin and diversifying into chemical precursors for meth and such), nine per cent Indo-Canadian, eight per cent Eastern European, and the remaining third independents, mostly Caucasian.

As of last year, police had the capacity to investigate about one in four identified groups, so they rank them with a threat assessment.

Tom Fletcher is legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press newspapers.

tfletcher [at] blackpress.ca